Ms Geraldine McGahey:

The racial equality directive, the employment equality framework directive, the gendered goods and services directive, the gender equality employment directive, the self-employment equality directive, and the gender equality and social security directive are the six.

When I referred to the work we are doing on the scope of Article 2, I was alluding to the fact that these are the very things we are examining. Each of the directives, while Northern Ireland is required to keep pace with developments in the EU, results in a much wider underpinning in terms of the legislative framework within which we operate within Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. This is why we are saying the scope of Article 2 is very far-reaching, perhaps much further reaching than government is prepared to accept or acknowledge at this stage.

Ultimately, the scope of Article 2 will be determined through the courts. The paper we are publishing in the autumn was developed based on very comprehensive research and stakeholder engagement. We are more than happy to come back to the committee to talk to the members about that and the recommendations emerging from it.

Let me go back to a point made on the three commissions working together. The work between the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and Ms Gibney's organisation is underpinned by statute. The Northern Ireland Act gives a statutory basis to the associated joint committee. The amendments to the Northern Ireland Act following the introduction of the withdrawal agreement formed the dedicated mechanism whereby the three commissions now work together on a statutory basis to consider the all-island dimension. Therefore, there is a statutory basis behind the work we do. This is part of the reason we believe it is really important that Article 2 be taken into account whenever the likes of a review of the Human Rights Act is being undertaken. The Good Friday Agreement set out and enshrined a number of rights. The problem is that it did not give a definition in a legalistic way, and it is open to interpretation. When you start looking back and peeling off the layers of the onion, you find you can make an argument that Article 2 underpins this.